Skip to main content
I have a confession to make. You know that show on the Catholic network (EWTN) called The Journey Home? I often watch it. I like it. I have for quite some time. Somewhat more scandalously, I've wanted to be a guest on the show. It's a show about former Protestants (I think also wayward "cradle Catholics") who come back to the Catholic Church. Even were I not considering such a move--which I cannot deny--it would be enjoyable for two reasons: 1. If you want to see passionate, Christ-like Catholics, watch this show. 2. If you've ever suspected that your Protestant church's theology is a bunch of convenient, anti-intellectual, fundamentalist nonsense, watch this show. [Sidebar rant: If you equate "fundamentalist" with voting Republican and/or being a moral traditionalist, I am NOT on your side.] The subtitle of the show could be "Pesky, Inconvenient Truths From Sane Christian People." In defense of non-loony Protestantism, many of these people could have saved themselves lots of trouble being conservative Anglicans, Presbyterians, or Lutherans. These converts do tend to be from the oddball wing of non-denominational Christianity. Easy pickings. On the other hand, this show would surely disabuse you of the notion that Catholics don't read, care about, or know Scripture. I'm just telling you straight up: Catholics who disdain/disobey/ignore Scripture are bad Catholics; they are not representative. That's also what I love about this show: I once thought Protestant=zealous for Christ, Catholic=lukewarm nominalism. Lies! All lies! Glory be!
All that is to say, while I remain skeptical of certain Catholic distinctives, (Mary, papacy/succession, Eucharist?) it is foolish for me to believe that a fully-orbed Catholic faith keeps one from Christ. The opposite is rather the case.

Comments

Jamie Stober said…
Jason, I love The Journey Home too. Marcus Grodi and his thoughtful guests have been a huge part of my spiritual journey to historic Christianity. It's a good corrective for those fools who peddle spurious stereotypes about Catholics not being "real" Christians. Unfortunately, though, broadbrush misrepresentations of Protestantism show up in this show, but, I guess turnabout is fair play.

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un